Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
B. Papa Rao – Appellant
Versus
Chief Executive Officer, (CEO) TPWODL, Burla, Sambalpur – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to pension nominee change (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. opposition to change of nominee (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments on validity of nominee change (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. interpretation of pension rules (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. judicial precedents on family pension eligibility (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. court orders pension nominee change (Para 16 , 17) |
| 7. conclusion of the judgment (Para 18) |
Judgment :
1. The Petitioner, who is a retired employee, has preferred the present Writ Petition challenging the order dated 12.10.2018 as at Annexure-11, vide which his prayer for change of nominee for the purpose of family pension stood rejected on the ground that such a prayer is not permissible under the Pension Rules. A further prayer has been made to direct the Opposite Parties to change the name of the nominee in the Pension Book by entering the name of the Petitioner’s 2nd wife within a stipulated period.
2.1 Thereafter, the Petitioner re-married on 22.08.2012 to Smt. Kilam Ratnamala before the Marriage Officer, Rayagada vide Registration No.21/12 and a certificate to the said effect was issued by the Marriage Office, Rayagada on 22.08.2012. The Petitioner submitted a representation b
Post-retirement spouses are entitled to family pension benefits, allowing for a change of nomination in pension documents as per relevant rules.
Pension benefits cannot be adjudicated through writ jurisdiction in the presence of competing marriage claims; a definitive legal spouse must be established in civil court settings.
Family pension eligibility is determined strictly by birth order among dependents, not by relinquishment rights.
The legal point established is the entitlement of the legally wedded spouse to pensionary benefits under the applicable rules and the invalidity of nominations contrary to statutory provisions.
The right of a spouse to family pension is independent of obligations towards children from a previous marriage.
Pension is a protected right under Article 300-A of the Constitution; denial of family pension to a legally wedded second wife without due process violates principles of natural justice.
The court affirmed the entitlement of a married disabled child to family pension from the date specified in an Office Memorandum, irrespective of procedural discrepancies in application.
A second wife cannot claim family pension benefits unless she can prove her legal marriage to the deceased employee, as the definition of 'widow' under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, requires legal r....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
